- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 47763 OF 2014 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. H.C. MANJULA W/O LATE K.S. SRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SRIKANTESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 096 2. SRI. L. RAGHU S/O B. LAXMANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT U-150, 2ND MAIN, SWATHANTHRANAGAR, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE-560 021 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJITH A. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NITISH K.N. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 19TH JANUARY 2013 AND 22ND FEBRUARY, 2013 AS PER ANNEXURES-F AND K RESPECTIVELY, TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF FIXING THE DATE OF EFFECT OF THE PETITIONERS' PROMOTION AS ON 6TH OF JUNE 2009 AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the Provisional Notification bearing No.HCE 249/2011 dated 19.01.2013 and Order bearing No.HCE 249/2011 dated 22.02.2013, by which the effective date of their promotion was declared as 06.06.2009. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to modify the said Provisional Notification dated 19.01.2013 and order dated 22.02.2013 and revert their date of promotion as effective from 06.03.2009. 2. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Group ‘D’ employees (Peons) as per the orders dated 21/22.06.2004 and 12.10.2004 respectively. On 24.02.2009, amendments were brought to the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 ('the Principal Rules' for brevity) raising educational qualifications for future appointments and promotions of employees. The petitioners who possessed a Bachelor’s Degree were promoted as Second Division Assistants (‘SDAs’ for short) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 with effect from 06.03.2009. Later, in May 2009, 100 staff were directly recruited as Typists and 100 individuals were directly recruited as SDAs by this Court. 3. When things stood thus, several Group 'D' employees, who did not possess the required qualification as per the amendment dated 24.02.2009 and who were deprived of promotion, filed W.P. Nos.35966-36032/2009. A coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 14.12.2010 allowed the said writ petitions and connected writ petitions and inter alia quashed the orders of promotion as per Annexures 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' in W.P. Nos.35966-36032/2009 given to the private respondents therein. It is stated that the said order of the learned single Judge was challenged before this Court in W.A. Nos.1934-1938/2011, 2341-2407/2011 and connected cases. The Division Bench of this Court in terms of the Order dated 12.10.2012, held that the vacancies that arose prior to the coming into force of the High Court Service (Conditions Of Service and Recruitment) (I Amendment) Rules, 2009, the High Court Service (Conditions Of Service and Recruitment) (II Amendment) Rules, 2009, the High Court Service (Conditions Of Service And Recruitment) (III Amendment) Rules, 2009, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 High Court Service (Conditions Of Service And Recruitment) (IV Amendment) Rules, 2009 and the High Court Service (Conditions Of Service And Recruitment) (V Amendment) Rules, 2009 (collectively referred to as 'the Amended Rules, 2009', for brevity) and which remained vacant till then shall be filled as per the Principal Rules and not the Amended Rules, 2009. 4. 4. As per the Principal Rules, 50% of the posts of SDAs had to be filled up by direct recruitment, while 25% had to be filled up through promotion from Group - D employees, who possessed a Bachelor's Degree with one year experience and 25% by promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit from the cadre of Group - D employees, who possessed SSLC qualification with minimum three years experience. The petitioners contend that as on 24.02.2009, a total number of 32 vacancies were available for the posts of SDAs from the cadre of Group - D employees. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Division Bench, 16 posts had to be filled up through promotion from amongst Group - D employees holding a Bachelor's Degree with one year experience and remaining 16 posts were to be filled up by promotion of Group - D employees, who possess a SSLC qualification with minimum of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 three years experience. The petitioners contend that as per the Principal Rules as well as the Amended Rules, 2009, they were entitled to be promoted as SDAs as per their original date of promotion dated 06.03.2009. 5. When things stood thus, a provisional notification was issued publishing a list of promotees in various cadres including the promotion of the Group - D employees to SDAs. The names of petitioners were enlisted and their effective date of promotions was declared as 06.06.2009. The petitioners being aggrieved by the movement of their effective date of promotion, filed objections dated 29.01.2013. However, the final list of promotion was published purportedly without considering the objections of the petitioners. Thereafter, on 23.12.2003 and 06.01.2014, further representations were filed by the petitioners to reconsider their requests. This Court in terms of a memo dated 09.09.2014, denied the request of the petitioners by holding that the date of effect of their promotion was valid and required no reconsideration. The petitioners are therefore, before this Court challenging their promotion given with effect from 06.06.2009 instead of 06.03.2009. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were entitled to be promoted as SDAs as per the Principal Rules as well as the Amended Rules, 2009 and therefore, their date of promotion could not have been moved from 06.03.2009 to 06.06.2009. He contended that the objections filed by the petitioners to the provisional list of promotees was not considered. He therefore, contends that the impugned provisional notification and the order giving effect to the promotion of the petitioners from 06.06.2009 have to be undone and restored to 06.03.2009. 7. The petition is opposed by the respondent, who contended inter alia that when the High Court of Karnataka (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 was amended in the year 2009, the rules relating to promotion to the cadre of SDA was also amended. Prior to the amendment, those Group - D employees, who possessed a SSLC qualification were eligible to be promoted to the cadre of SDA. However, after the amendment, only those Group - D employees, who possessed Degree qualification were eligible for promotion to the cadre of SDA. Hence, in the process of redoing the promotion as per the judgment of the Division - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 Bench, 32 posts of SDAs which were vacant and unfilled before the Amended Rules, 2009, but filled as per Amended Rules, 2009 were undone by giving promotion to eligible candidates as per the Principal Rules. Accordingly, the promotions which were accorded for 32 posts of SDAs i.e., 26 posts on 06.03.2009, 1 post on 17.03.2009 and 5 posts on 06.06.2009 were redone by giving promotions to the officials as per the Principal Rules. It is contended that in the above process, the promotions already accorded to 32 vacancies were redone wherein the top 16 Group - D officials, who possessed Degree were promoted and the remaining 16 Group - D officials from the bottom of the seniority were pushed down and they were allotted subsequent deemed dates of promotion. In the process, the petitioners were found to be eligible for promotion based on their seniority in the cadre of Group-D on 06.06.2009. Accordingly, vide order dated 22.02.2013, they were shown as deemed to be promoted in the cadre of SDA with effect from 06.06.2009. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned provisional notification and the order altering the date of promotion of the petitioners from 06.03.2009 to 06.06.2009 are just and proper. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 8. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the above contentions and submitted that this change had to happen in view of the judgment of the Division Bench. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions at the bar, it is first appropriate to refer to the relevant Principal Rules and the Rules as per the High Court Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) (I Amendment) Rules, 2009, in so far as it relates to recruitment to the post of SDAs. A comparative table of the aforesaid Rules is extracted below: Sl. No. Cadre Principal Rules Amended Rules 19. Second Division Assistant a) 50% by direct recruitment by selection after calling for application and interviewing the applicants. The minimum qualification for direct recruitment shall be a degree (a) 50% by direct recruitment by selection after calling for application and interviewing the applicants. The minimum qualification for direct recruitment shall be a degree in Science/Arts/ Commerce/ Business Management of a recognised University with - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 of a recognised University with minimum of 55% marks in the aggregate for candidate belonging to General category and a minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes. b) 25% Promotion on the basis of seniority-cum- merit from the cadre of Group D officials working in the High Court Establishment and who have passed degree examination of recognised University and who have put in not less than one year of service c) 25% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum- merit from the cadre of Group D officials working in the High Court Establishment and who have passed minimum of 55% marks in the aggregate for candidate belonging to General category and a minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes. (b) 50% Promotion on the basis of seniority-cum- merit from the cadre of Group D officials working in the High Court Establishment and who have passed degree examination of recognised University and who have put in not less than two years of service". Explanation: 1. The present members who are working as Second Division Assistants and who do not possess the required qualification, shall qualify themselves, without affecting the regular work, with prior permission of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, within a period of five years, falling which they shall not be entitled for further promotion. The permission is not automatic, but subject to the interest of the Institution. Such permission shall not take away the Rights of the senior employees and does not confer the undue privileges on the Junior - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 the SSLC or Equivalent examination and who have put in not less than 3 years of Service. d) If any vacancy cannot be filled up by promotion for want of suitable candidate from the cadre of Group D Officials possessing degree qualification, the same shall be filled up by promoting suitable candidate from the cadre of Group D Officials Possessing SSLC or equivalent qualification. e) If any vacancy meant for Group D Officials cannot be filled up by promotion for want of suitable candidate, the same shall be filled by direct recruitment. employees. The qualification obtained without following the above norms would not be taken into consideration, till they come within the zone of consideration. Note:-1) For securing minimum qualification prescribed for this cadre within stipulated time, the permission may be liberally granted. 2) The period of time prescribed for securing minimum qualification (i.e. five years) starts from the date of permission. 3) If no eligible candidate is available for promotion, such vacant post may be filled up by direct recruitment. 11. Certain employees, who were aggrieved by the promotions granted in respect of vacancies that arose prior to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 the Amended Rules, 2009, filed W.P.Nos.35966-36032/2009, which were allowed and against the said order, the respondent herein filed W.A.Nos.1934-1938/2011 and connected appeals. The Division Bench after considering the intricacies, held that those vacancies that arose prior to coming into force of the Amended Rules, 2009 and which remained vacant till then, should be filled up as per the Principal Rules and not as per the Amended Rules, 2009. The petitioners have not disputed the fact that 32 posts of SDAs were vacant by way of promotions from the cadre of Group - D employees and unfilled as on 24.02.2009 i.e., before the Amended Rules, 2009. As a consequence, by virtue of the judgment of the Division Bench stated supra, these 32 posts had to be filled up as per the Principal Rules, by way of promotions from the cadre of Group - D employees. Since these vacancies arose prior to the Amended Rules, 2009, 50% each had to be filled up from amongst Group - D officials possessing a Degree and SSLC qualification respectively. Accordingly, 16 posts each were filled up from amongst senior most persons in the cadre of Group - D officials, who possessed Degree and SSLC qualification respectively. The petitioners were Group - D employees having - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13391 WP No. 47763 of 2014 a Degree qualification. The petitioners, who were promoted after the Amended Rules, 2009 and before the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, had to make way for those Group - D employees, who possessed qualification prior to the Amended Rules, 2009. It is precisely this that the respondent has done by first accommodating those Group - D employees, who were eligible prior to the Amended Rules, 2009. The impugned provisional notification and the order specifically mentioned that the final list of promotees was published based on the seniority in the respective cadres and as per the seniority list. Therefore, there is no error in the respondent altering the date of promotion of the petitioners from 06.03.2009 to 06.06.2009 warranting interference in this writ petition. 12. Hence, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma - para Nos.1 to 3 PMR - para Nos.4 to end